Multiple Bonus–Malus Scale Models for Insureds of Different Sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to consider the a priori risks in experience-rating models has been questioned in the actuarial community for a long time. Classic past-claim-rating models, such as the Buhlmann–Straub credibility model, normalize the past experience of each insured before applying claim penalties. On the other hand, classic Bonus–Malus Scales (BMS) models generate the same surcharges and the same discounts for all insureds because the transition rules within the class system do not depend on the a priori risk. Despite the quality of prediction of the BMS models, this experience-rating model could appear unfair to many insureds and regulators because it does not recognize the initial risk of the insured. In this paper, we propose the creation of different BMSs for each type of insured using recursive partitioning methods. We apply this approach to real data for the farm insurance product of a major Canadian insurance company with widely varying sizes of insureds. Because the a priori risk can change over time, a study of the possible transitions between different BMS models is also performed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".